Search

In Peltier v. Charter Day School, Inc., the Fourth Circuit held that a North Carolina charter school violated the U.S. Constitution by requiring girls to wear skirts and prohibiting them from wearing pants or shorts. In reaching that conclusion, the Fourth Circuit also became the first federal court of appeals to hold that a charter school is a state actor subject to constitutional claims--just like traditional public schools. While this decision has been lauded as advancing civil rights and affirming that charter schools are state actors, it did not go far enough. The court additionally held in Peltier that the for-profit education management organization that operated the charter school and helped create the dress code was not a state actor. This Recent Development critiques that aspect of the opinion and argues that the court drew an arbitrary line between public and private in finding the charter school, but not its management organization, to be a state actor. Effectively, the Fourth Circuit created a liability shield from Section 1983 challenges for education and charter management organizations operating in North Carolina., INTRODUCTION When Bonnie Peltier attended parents' orientation at Charter Day School ('CDS') in Leland, North Carolina, she learned that her daughter would be required to wear a skirt to school [...]

The Supreme Court has long held that children enjoy a range of constitutional rights and has emphasized the critical importance of many of these rights to children's development as democratic citizens. At the same time, the Court has been resolute in its protection of parents' near-absolute authority to control the upbringing of children. Indeed, the Supreme Court's steadfast commitment to broad parental rights under the Due Process Clause effectively diminishes, if not outright nullifies, the Court's stated protections for children as rights-bearing citizens. The stakes for children have only heightened as parents increasingly seek to exercise their authority to shield their children from certain ideas, such as ideas about racial injustice or gender inequality, that are essential to their development as full citizens in a pluralistic, democratic polity. This Article offers a new framework for children in constitutional law, one that elevates children's rights as developing citizens by recognizing parental duties to respect those citizenship rights. The in loco reipublicae framework positions parents as standing in place of the state with constitutional duties to ensure children's acquisition of the knowledge and skills needed for citizenship in our democratic polity. Parental in loco reipublicae duties are rooted in a potent constitutional mixture of parents' unique custodial authority over children and children's own citizenship rights. While children's free speech rights are not the only constitutional rights that protect children's citizenship interests, they are a powerful exemplar of parental duties to ensure children's access to ideas outside the home. In articulating a theory of children's citizenship rights and parents' corresponding duties, the in loco reipublicae framework aims to fortify the parent-child relationship while, at the same time, respecting children as developing democratic citizens in their own right., ARTICLE CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 421 I. CHILDREN'S CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS 429 A. Developing Democratic Citizens 431 1. Rights to a Democratic Upbringing 432 2. The Core Right of Access to Ideas 434 [...]

This Article makes the case for understanding the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Republican Guarantee Clause of Article IV. Incorporation shifts the focus of the Guarantee Clause from the interests of states to the interests of citizens; from protecting popular sovereignty as a political ideal to safeguarding more specifically rights that citizens hold and exercise in a republican system. Once incorporated, the Guarantee Clause should be understood to require states themselves to maintain a republican form of government and to act to correct departures from republicanism within their own governing arrangements. In addition, an incorporated Guarantee Clause informs the meaning of rights protected against state interference under Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment: safeguards for privileges and immunities, due process of law, and equal protection of the laws, are all usefully understood with an eye to republicanism. So, too, an incorporated Guarantee Clause informs the meaning of provisions of the Bill of Rights when they are applied to state governments. Incorporation also has implications for the national government: its role shifts from a duty owed to the states to an obligation to protect from state interference citizenship rights that serve republican ends. Finally, incorporation alters the traditional assessment that Guarantee Clause claims are nonjusticiable., INTRODUCTION 1436 I. REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 1437 A. Apportionment 1438 1. A Single Amendment Penalizing Racial Discrimination 1438 2. The Section 2 Formula 1447 [...]

Throughout the twenty-first century, St. Louis was one of the most segregated metropolitan cities in the nation. This problematic setting allowed the city to become ground zero for the legal battle against racial segregation. While many are aware of the historic ruling in Shelley v. Kraemer, which prohibited state enforcement of racially restrictive deed covenants, less is known about the distinct local history in St. Louis that set the stage for this case. This Essay discusses the history of racially restrictive covenants in the city and the subsequent legal challenges that occurred on the state and local level. Gordon focuses on a key figure in this history, Scovel Richardson, and his seminal case Dolan v. Richardson. The Essay argues that Richardson's case served as a precursor to Shelley and explains the substance and history of legal arguments deployed by Richardson in the case. Gordon explains that, despite its unsatisfying outcome, this challenge to restrictive covenants in Richardson opened the door for the groundbreaking ruling in Shelley., INTRODUCTION Between 1900 and 1960, the population of St. Louis grew by about thirty percent to just over 750,000. (1) During this span, encompassing the First and Second Great Migrations, [...]

INTRODUCTION 123 I NEVSUN V ARAYA'S PROCEDURAL HISTORY 125 A. Background 125 B. Preliminary Issues at the Trial Level 127 C. Issues Raised at the British Columbia Court of Appeal 128 D. Nevsun Reaches the Supreme Court 128 II WILL COURTS ADVANCE COMMON LAW CIL TORTS IN CASES OF CORPORATE WRONGDOING? 131 A. Nominate CIL-Based Torts Appear to Fail Under a Traditional Tort Creation Analysis 132 B. Will the Courts Develop a New Basis to Recognize Novel Common Law Torts? 135 C. Practical Barriers to CIL Tort Creation Following Nevsun 136 III NEVSUN DID NOT QUESTION CANADA'S PROTECTIVE CORPORATE LIABILITY FRAMEWORK 140 A. Piercing the Corporate Veil 140 B. Reaching Around the Corporate Veil to Establish a Novel Duty of Care? 144 IV TANGENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE GROWTH OF CIL TORT LITIGATION AFTER NEVSUN 150 A. Resolving Questions of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: To What Extent Will Tort Law Reach Corporate Conduct Abroad? 151 B. Closing a Gap Between Public and Private Liability 155 V CONCLUSION 158 Multinational corporations typically rely on legally independent subsidiaries to operate parts of their global supply chain. When legally independent entities within the supply chain commit human rights violations, victims often face a Hobson's choice: bring a lawsuit in their home jurisdiction against a subsidiary company that lacks the purse to pay compensatory damages, or sue the parent company in that company's home jurisdiction where the case will likely be dismissed at a preliminary stage due to either the forum non conveniens doctrine or the common law rules that limit parent corporations' liability. In Nevsun v Araya, an extraterritorial corporate human rights case, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the common law does not clearly preclude recognition of tort causes of action based on customary international law (CIL) norms, and that corporations can be liable for violating CIL norms. This article argues that Nevsun has not clearly demonstrated Canadian courts will advance CIL tort litigation. And, even if Nevsun spurs the creation of CIL-based torts, corporate liability under domestic law constrains human rights litigation for harms that take place outside Canada. Absent evolution of the common law, domestic corporate liability rules will likely continue to impede tort litigation against Canadian corporate actors for extraterritorial human rights violations. This article concludes by calling attention to two under-developed areas of law--forum of necessity and the commercial activity exception to the State Immunity Act--which offer innovative avenues for CIL tort litigation. KEYWORDS Human rights, corporate liability, corporate veil, common law torts, customary international law, INTRODUCTION In February 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decided in Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya(1) that a dispute involving allegations of forced labour and cruel and inhumane treatment [...]

I. INTRODUCTION II. OKLAHOMA'S EFFORTS TO USE PUBLIC NUISANCE LAW TO CONFRONT THE OPIOID CRISIS III. THE TENTH AMENDMENT PERMITS STATE REGULATION OF PROPERTY UNDER STATE POLICE POWER IV. WAS [...]

In Colorado v. Connelly the Supreme Court held that police misconduct is necessary for an inadmissible confession. Since the Connelly decision, courts and scholars have framed the admissibility of a [...]

I. INTRODUCTION As part of an ongoing balancing act between the interests of mortgage creditors and homeowners' associations, twenty states have implemented a 'super-priority' lien that allows homeowners' association dues [...]

I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and [...]

I. INTRODUCTION II. THE EVOLUTION OF STATE ACTION A. An Inevitable Circuit Split B. A Rationale for the Doctrine C. Three Categories of State Action 1. Public Function Theory 2. [...]

Ohno v. Yasuma, 723 F.3d 984 (2013). The California Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (the Uniform Act) allows a California court to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment. (1) [...]

Repossession of secured collateral is a fundamental component of the consumer credit industry. The Uniform Commercial Code authorizes a secured party to engage in self-help repossession of secured collateral under [...]

INTRODUCTION A young woman visits her local obstetrician. She tells him that she suspects, based on a home pregnancy test, that she is pregnant. Unwed and scared, she hesitated before [...]

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENTS (CBAs), contractual agreements related to large development projects, are a relatively new tool in the realm of land use and urban planning. (1) They are the result [...]

This Essay considers the requirement of state action in suits brought against private corporations under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). It argues that, in addressing this requirement, courts have erred [...]

Wickersham v. City of Columbia (1) I. INTRODUCTION Constitutional restrictions are not one-size-fits-all, restricting all conduct equally. Instead, the United States Constitution creates a schism between governmentally controlled domains and [...]

The NCAA would like the American public to believe that only a few schools ever break the rules, and it is never one of their golden programs. But other than [...]

A Baltimore library refused to admit Louise Kerr to a training program because she was black. Not that it had anything against blacks, but its patrons did. When Kerr launched [...]